INDIAN OFFICE FILES CAUTION! Positively no papers to be added to or taken from this file, except by an employee of the Mails and Files Division. By order of E. B. MERITT, Asst. Commissioner.Land-Conts. 22864425, ERM Np. Wes. ery Winder, 1654 Oregon Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio, My doar Ure. Winder: Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of Movoh 15, 1926, An which you inquive whore you may obtain @ copy of Volume 285 of Federal Reporter, which contains the decision of the Court in the caso of United States v. Boylan ot al., referred to in letter to you dated February 135, 1923. You should be able to find a copy of this yolume in any law office or well equipped law library, With respect to the funds of the Onetda Indians, this will advise you that. they have no trust fund um- der the control or supervision of the Goverment. The last Congress appropriated the sum of $4,500 to be paid to the Six Nations of New York as annuity provided for by the treaty of November 11, 1794 (7 Stat Le 44). Such of the Oneidas as are wersay enrolled as a part of the Six Nations of New York will share in the dis- tribution of this payment. Very truly yours, (Signed) EB. Meritt Assistant Conmissioner. S-LM-30Youn kxtter of 422 ~ 1973 nec amd wor pirorrd te from you . Vor Oiane oF Tas. moniensd y you ar U hang cop 4 of Phan. 0 ame Tg onkig Andaees fOr peu seeNiaad foniiclan) ve to KE U- To ha Crow Or ThA Bodom conn, Fre Dradon have raver soid Tha Tus creak ond GxRe MRA OS YWd om noth Aes oH Onan SHG Fale ee : os 23030-1923... 5: etieee page SS ae Ss67e83 LS ae Mrs Hugh @. Corbett; 2 Managing Secretary, Appleton Chamber of Commerce, Wpcleton, Wisconsin. Dear Mr. Corbett: : Office is in reocipt, by Departmental eferenge, of your letter of February 6, 1923, ad- dressed to the Attorney General, with respect to the claims of the Oneida Indinne to lands in the State of : Mew York. - The ‘mimeographed copy of the contentions of the aid Indians, which refere to the jurisdiction of the State and the Yederal Government over the oaid In- dians and their lends, and propounde a number of hypo- thetical questione concerning the property rights of i these Indians, hae veen read #ith considerable interest. a However, in view of the absence of any specific and direct authority of Congress defining the etatus of the Mew York Indians, the Office would not wish to express any definite opinion with relation thereto. Ao a matter of interest your attention 16 invited to the fact that bilis (H.R. 5342 and 11863), re now pending in Congress, and relate to the juriedias tion of the Government over the Indians ef the State of New York. BSinogtely youre (Signed) Chas. H. Barka 2-16) jmb ~ Commiasioner. zatDEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON, D. C. : Great Jer Geel G1 F I transmit herewith, for your consideration and such reply as you may deem proper, a copy of a letter dated Tevruary 5, 1923, addressed to me by lz. Hugh G. Corbett, Managing Secretary, Apppleton Chamber of — Commerce, Appleton, Wisconsin, who asks information regarding the claim of the Oneida Indians to lands in the State of New York. I also transmit a cory of a report apparently made to the Chamber by lr. Corbett concerning thé matter. T°have informed’ Mr. Corbett of this reference. Yery respectfully, For the Attopney Gene: Inelosure #145126.copy APPLETON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. Appleton, Wisconsin. Fepruary 6, 1923. ‘The Honorable, ry Harry M. Daugherty, POF RONAN, Attorney General, € iat Washington, D. C. . e215 1923 13039 The Oneida Indians on the Oneida Reservebion in Oftage County, of which Appleton is the County Seat are contending that they are entitled to certain lands in the state of New York under a treaty between Indians of the Six Nations of which they are a part and the Federal Government. The Oneidas on the Reservation are coming to the Appleton Chamber of Com merce and the business men of several other cities asking for financial support to bring legal action against the State of New York to reclaim these lands. Dear Sir: We are enclosing a mimsographed report representing the Indians claims. We do not claim that this report is authority. It simply represents the Indians’ claims as they present them to use Appleton business men are rather reluctant to contribute financial support to what may be only the scheme of 30m law- yer to get the Indians into a.useless law suit, one that has no justice or merit back of it. If you can furnish us any information regarding the Oneida Indians contentions, it will be appreciated. Yours very truly, Hugh G. Corbett. Yanaging Secretary.‘d Oneide Indians! Clains to Tani in the § me Court of the United States in a 34,250 case DRay Oneida who held mortgage as of acres in New York Affirmation by the Supre! ty Oneida Indians against white men in the city of title o Indian lands has brought title to thousa State into question. | The Indians Claim ew York consummated a treaty the same being x in the state with the (igs) That the Indians residing in the state of K th the United States Governnent through its regular ohenncls, approved and ratified by General George Washington at Port Stanw of New York in 1784 by which they were seceded certain territory boundaries of the state. (20a) ‘That the seceding and setting over to the Indians of this territory tas im accordance with and at the conclusion of a treaty consummated by the Indians as a Nation and by the United States as = Netion. (gta) Farther, that the passing of the title of this seceded territory to the Indians of the state was a legal end proper transaction and that the Indians as a Nation beoame possessed of the seceded territory the same as any other nation would become possessed. (4tm) That the said Indians of the State of New York as a Nation are still the owners of the fee simple title to the territory seceded to them by the treaty of 1784. The Question Does the white man hold millions of acres of land in Ne! or by swindle? s York State by right - Does the Federal government consider its treaty with the Six Nations of the Troquis of 1784 binding and valid? If the Federal treaty is binding, are the state land treeties with the various tribes of the Iroquois confederacy dating from 178% valid or invalid? what about the present occupants of If the state treaties were made illegal, the lands affected? These are bristling interrogations in the Indian land question. It is not 2 new problem. For a time it vas considered as a dead one by every one except a few Indians among the six thousand on the Heservations of the State. But there has been a startling resurrection with the findings of Assemblyman Edvard A. Everett, former chairman of the Stete Indian Commission, participating a state wide fight, and putting the Six Nations on the legel war path. Cities, toms and villages in central, western and northern New York are involv- ed in tne matter. Clear title to perhaps nearly six million acres is thrown {nto more or less jeopardy. In brief the former chairman of the Indien Conmis- fAon, after the hesrings On the various Reservations, and at Alvany covering @ period of t¥o years, and concluding with a mesting of the Chiefs of the Six Wstione in Aloany Februery 24th and 25th, 1922 finds, "That the . . . Indians 7 , as a Nation are still tho omers . . . of the territory seceded them y (the Federal Government) by the treaty of 1784 unless devested of the same by nt of equal force and effect as the said treaty." Former Chairman Everett's Opinion erett says that so.fer ag he oanfind, there has never been an instrument oh foree, and the title still reneins with the Indtens. L objects the cesual reader, the white men have omed this land so long that t onfirined wy the lapse of tine, en! by their cccupence. tuetr rights havi nto of limitations proceedings. An@ thie ie Mr. Bveretb's anaver to that que oes not run agoinst Phe Indians as thay cou witineut the consent of the state."» So the question looms as one of collogsal magnitude; to be settled one way OF another in the near future ‘At the conclusion of the Revolution in 2784, George Washington, as President of tie Tuiied states, consumatedlaltreaty with the Troguois|as o Nation) sie text tyrwnich is given elsewhere. ‘Then came a later period of adjustment tn hich tho mands ef the Indians went first in large chunks by state treaties, end the Jone’ uclier parcels by various procedures, including mortgage foreclosure. Tt is one of these later individual cases, mown as the Boyland case and involv- ng lends im the City of Oneida that Federal Judge George YU. Rey of ‘the United Stetes Suprene Court handed dovm a deoision with opinion in which he declares, cre title ley with the Indians, and that the Indiens had never lost thetr right cf self-government. This decision was affirmed by the United States Supreme Gourt without opinion. Tt would appear now by Indian records, the treaties made by the State of Noe Tork sith tne separate tribesof Indians in 1888, end after that by which they took away the Indiens land, are not valid. Whipple Report ‘The Assembay report of 1899, part of the Whipple report states that this treaty of 1784 with the Federal Government, and these other treaties with the United States infers that the Indians must deal with the United States. That they are under the direction of the Federal Government. That dealings with the Indians tua to be held vith the Six Nations, and not with any individual tribe of the Confederacy, The State of New York made its land treaties with the. individual qations, The question nor is, can these treaties be valid under our lew. me treaty of 1788 which the state of Now York made with the Onondagas under st the the Ouondagas ceded all their lands, the state giving 1000 French Croms - 00 Ths. of oleth end 4500.00, The Indians contend the State cond not nake this treaty with Just one tribe. To be legal it hed to he made with all. rurther in the report we find Ephraim Webster living on the edge of the Onondages Reservation wanted 300 acres. The Onondagas let him have some to use. Then he got come of the chiefs together, and they vent dow to Albany, and he acted as ‘interpreter for the whole proceedings (although he was the only man who was going to get anything out of it.) The Indians hold that this was not @ lege) treaty, claiming there is nothing to show. That these people who signed it for the Indians were Onondagas and Sachens. In Conclusion he Indians claim that under the constitution of the United States, the President te the only person with the right to sign a treaty. That states are not permit- tea to make treaties, so that even if the state treaty of 1788 is valid the treaty with the state after 1789 when the constitution went into effect cond not be legal. The Indians further claim that there is nothing in the Federal Treaty of 1796 ty which the United States ratified these illegal state treaties. They further Claim that the treaty gives the Stete @ pretty vroad hint that 1t has mo rient te tate auay the imdlans lend when it says in article two: "But the Reservation reall remin theirs until they choose to sei tho caae to of the Cried States, who have the right to purchase.“ ‘has meens, so slain the ‘ang that the people of the State of New York haa no » foregoing report is all the information your Secretary has been able to core on the Oneida Indian claims to lané in the State of New York. Respectfially submitted,ts uur ans eon ahh fet sna See apes Fa Map of poswain NEW YORK STATE el ne Showing ‘itufitesa Indian Land Question ‘at a Glance Mr, Edward A. Everett was an Assemblyman and Chairman of the Indian Commission for the State of New York when this map was prepared.1 L-c¢ ; {Ny 422-23 4 Ey Eire : a : ne 5 FEB 18 1923 . Urs. Wary Winder, : : le 1654 Oregon Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio. Dear Ure. Winder: I em ih receipt, by reference’ from the President, of your letter of January 14, 1023, re- questing information regarding certain lands within the State of New York alleged.to velong to the Oneida Indians. In connection with thie alleged claim you are advised that the 81x Nations of New York entered into a treaty in 1764 (7 Stat. L., 15), which made Peace with the Senecas, Mohawks, Onondegns, and. Cayigas, who had sided with the Mother Country during the Revo- lutionary War. By artiole 2 of this treaty it was pro~ vided that the Oneidas and Tuseproras, who had remained loyal to the Coloni: + "shall be secure in the po session of the lands on which they are settied+” The treaty of Jnnuary 9, 1769 (7 Stat. b-753), conoluded by the Government at Fort Harmar, Ohio, with the 8ix Wations (including the Oneidas) again confirmed the Oneida and Buscorora tribes in the possession of their Tespeative land By the treaty of Movember 11, 1794 (7 Stat. L. 44), conoluded at Kon-on-daigua, New York, with the Six Nations, the United States in article 2 thereof - "ao- Knowledge the lande reserved to the Oneida, Onondaga, and Cayuga Nations, in their reopective treaties with the Gtate of New York, and called their reservations, to be their property; From time to time, since the treaties men- tioned, the Oneidns have sold ly a1 of their lande to the State of New York, and some of them live with the Onondaga and Seneca tribes. A large number of them also femoved to m reservation in Wisconsin where they are now living. ‘The remaining Oneida lands - 550 acres = have long since been divided in severelty under the Hew York State lawe; and, as | tribe, these Indiansare know no more in that State. A history, at some length, of the said tribe end of the various treaties with the Government and the State of New York, is set out in the case of the United States v. Boylan et al. (265 Federal Reporter, page 165). Further, the said court decision goes fully into | the question of the Federal and State jurisdiction over the New York Indians Your inquity as to the funds of the Oneida Indians will be the subject of another letter. Sincerely yours, i Signed) Chas. H. Barka Commissioner.de hae? thon ~ Chefeland, Ohio i ‘ian \ prota. Naa ie dechcg tern cte cee d op the. aaked, aid of us. Yt don ee wilt grant ir, Vom of i Craida Sube of Pidiame of dew your, Pn 178% omd 1795 we rckd our OL nasewng a nuscnvolisn 40 miler ateng Hrah Cronk” amdThey ag 22d Dhol ef amy agpalins Came an Un, wwe were Te notify a ouenst of AN. Ye wnt. uURo would nemo ame. Shore ons agualtrra on U-, We have nolipcd He Yormory many tanes and Rant samt dikegalona of chuizfs To Mirony,3 Sut of ne wae, only promise. We want then pe domd ov ORR A money fst 2ome ,AnA ae comt ® wth midi ar ceed aguas . | Another mattin uhich Sunk io, aK you atout ia, 1899 accoulong’y Barepod I hare of thew. S. Somaha, Gia was approprcoted 7-0.477-80 Boe por ous we resred ® leo” gock im 1906. gens nod Herne more : warbrnrgtan bw Re eS Be onsuideaa .U hane uncle hE Dndian Ccommisinnsr omd he Acad Raw in no movers TH ote account, wisuldat Yor dotome Bumg Th gob oun fomda om Malar fork gy Se Poe we? rete. Wm adrnnce, pecors 1654 Mregsn eAyerw GlereLoma,rte ae Es ‘Lc 7967=1823 wuW FEB 5.1923 Mt, Frederic J. Haskin, 1220 North Capitol Street, Washington, D. ¢. Dear Mr. Haskin: I om in receipt of your letter of January 23, i923, in which you ask that you be advised as to an ine quiry reeeived apparently from.the Appleton (lew York) Ghanber of Commerce, with tespact to the claim of the Oneida Indians in Outagemte County, New York, to a large tract of country embracing more than half of the territory in the present State of New York. With respect to the contention of the Mneidas - that they have a legal claim to the ind on account of » trenty that the Six Nations entered into at Fort Stenwix, Mew York, in 1784, and that @ subsequent treaty made with ane said State in 1766 wns illegal, you are advised as Lows: The treaty referred to - that of October 22, 1784 (7 Stat. L., 15), concluded at Fort Stanwix, made peace with the Seneons, Mohawks, Onondagas, and Cayugas, who had sided with the wother Country during the Revolu- tionary War. Article 2 of this treaty provided, inter alia, that. the Oneida and Tuscorara Nations, who had been loyal to the Colonists in thelr etriggle for independence = "shall be secure in the possession of the 1nnds on vhien they Bre settle The treaty of Jenuary 9, 1780 (7 Stat. L., 353), gonoluded by the Government at Fort Harmar, Ohio, with the Six Nations (ineluding the Oneidas) again confirmed the Oneida and Tuscarora tribes in the possession of their teapective lands. By the treaty of Movember 11, 1794 (7 Stat. Ie, 44), concluded at Kon~on=daiy@ua, New York, with the Six Hations, the United States in article ® thereof - "noknowl- ‘edge. the lade reserved to the Oneida, Onondnga, end Cay= uga Hations, in their respective treaties with the Stats qe? ° Ieigime ctey. pas es PBS i Pi Prkof. New York, and opiled theit reservations, to Re their property; ". From time to time, since the treaties men- tioned, the Oneidas have sold nearly 911 of their lends to the State of tiew York, and some of them live: with the Onondaga and Seneca tribes. A large number of. them also removed to a reservation in Wisconsin where they are now living. ‘he remaining Oneida lands ~ 350 acres ~ have long since been divided in severelty under the New York State laws; and, as - tribe, these Indians are known no more in that State. Ahistozy, at some length, of thé said trive aid of the various trenties with the Government and the State Of New York, is vet out in the onse of the United States y. Boylen ot al. (265 Bederal Reporter; page 165). Further, the sid court decision goes fully. into the question of the Federal and State jurisdiction over the New York Indians. The inclosures, including a rough sketch of the State of New York, showing the territory claimed by the Oneidas, pre returned; and a.oarbon copy of this newer is inclosed for your convenience. Sincerely yours, (Signed) E.B. Meritt Assistant Gonmissioner. Inolopure 12415, 2-2 jmb 2\ Frederic J. Haskin \ Correspondent ‘The Haskin Letter 1220 N. Capitol st. The Haskin Books Washington, D. C. The Information Bureau 13783 Commissioner of Indian Affairs Intértor Department Washington DC Dear Sir: Will you kindly give us information in regerd to the following inquiry which was received in this Office? "The Oneida Indians in Outagamie County, of which Appleton is the County seat, are asking the financial support of the Appleton Chamber of Commerce and the merchants of Appleton in the prosecution of a claim they, with other Indiang 5 state they have on certain lands situated in the Siasie Paes New York, These claims are shown by the laded portions of the enclosed pencil sketch of the state of New York. "The Oneidas'@.contention is that they have @ legal claim to the land on account of a treaty entered into by the Six Nations of the Iroquois and the Federal Government, and that this treaty was approved end ratified ty General Geo. Washington, at Fort Stanwix inthe state of New York in 1784. "They further contend that the New York State land treaty of 1786 was made illegally, claiming that the Federal treaty of 1784 being a treaty of greater of power, is still binéing, and gives them title to the territory until devested of it by an instrument of greater force and effect than the treaty of 1784. "What we are anxious to learn is are these claims real facts, or just made up by some shyster lawyers to filch money out of the Indians, If you can offer any advice or suggestions as to how best to proceed to learn the facts regarding this SS ‘THE HASKIN LETTER HAS MORE REGULAR READERS THAN ANY OTHER DAILY NEWSPAPER FEATURE IN THE UNITED STATES 7 eis a a 1964 ezol 6% NVIa Frederic J. Haskin \ Correspondent The Haskin Letter 1220. Capital Se The Haskin Books Washington, D. C. The Information Bureau contention, I shall certainly appreciate it." Please address your reply to the attention of Miss Duvall, Yours truly Frederic J Haskin Director du-hf ‘THE HASKIN LETTER HAS MORE REGULAR READERS THAN ANY OTHER DAILY NEWSPAPER FEATURE IN THE UNITED STATES “i ‘ Sw ie a